From BZ/dpa
If someone creates a work on the instructions of an artist, is he one himself? The Munich I Regional Court dealt with this question on Monday.
It negotiated a copyright dispute between the freelance artist Götz Valien and the administrator of the estate of the artist Martin Kippenberger, who died in 1997.
It is about the works “Paris Bar” one to three. After not being invited to the contemporary art exhibition “Metropolis” in Berlin’s Martin-Gropius-Bau in 1991, Kippenberger organized a counter-exhibition in Berlin’s Paris Bar – with works by artist friends that were hung on the wall there.
Kippenberger commissioned a Berlin cinema poster painting company to paint the photo of the exhibition hanging in the bar on a large-format canvas. The freelance artist Valien who is now suing made the desired painting in 1992 and half a year later another, similar one. In 1993 he painted another picture that, according to the court, was very similar to version one.
Versions one and two became known as the Kippenberger works. The first version of “Paris Bar” fetched almost £2.3 million at auction in London in 2009.
Who now has the copyright to the work – Kippenberger, who gave the order and the instructions or the plaintiff Götz Valien, who carried them out – that is the core of the legal dispute.
The freelance artist requests to be named as a co-author for versions one and two. After all, he had and perceived a certain creative freedom in the commissioned work.
According to the court, the administrator of the estate, on the other hand, asserted at the hearing that the freelance artist had only made a technical contribution and was therefore not a co-author.
According to a spokeswoman, the court wants to announce a decision on the matter on August 7th.